Abstract:Objective: Across two experiments, we examined three cognitive biases (order effects, context effects, confirmatory bias) in licensed psychologists' diagnostic reasoning. Hypotheses: Our main prediction was that psychologist-participants would seek confirming versus disconfirming information after forming an initial diagnostic hypothesis, even given multiple opportunities to seek new information in the same case. We also expected that individual differences would affect diagnostic reasoning, such that psychologists with lower (vs. higher) cognitive reflection tendencies and larger (vs. smaller) bias blind spots would be more likely to demonstrate confirmatory bias. Method: In Study 1, we recruited 149 licensed psychologists (M = 18 years of experience; 44% women; 71% White) and exposed them to one of four randomly assigned vignettes that varied order effects (one set of symptoms in reversed orders) and context effects (court referral vs. employer referral). They rank ordered a list of four possible initial diagnostic hypotheses and received a piped follow-up choice of which of two pieces of information (confirmatory or disconfirmatory) they wanted to test their initial hypothesis. Study 2 (n = 131; M = 21 years of experience; 53% men; 68% White) replicated and extended Study 1, following the same procedure except offering three sequential choice opportunities. Results: Both studies found robust confirmatory information seeking: 92% sought confirmatory information in Study 1, and confirmation persisted across three opportunities in Study 2 (90%, 84%, 77%), although it lowered with each opportunity (generalized logistic mixed regression model), F(2, 378) = 3.85, p = .02, ηp² = .02. Conclusion: These findings expand a growing body of research on bias in expert judgment. Specifically, psychologists may engage in robust confirmation bias in the process of forming diagnoses. Although further research is needed on bias and its impact on accuracy, psychologists may need to take steps to reduce confirmatory reasoning processes, such as documenting evidence for and against each decision element. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Stop Fooling Yourself! (Diagnosing and Treating Confirmation Bias)

Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises

A common factor underlying individual differences in confirmation bias

Confirmatory information seeking is robust in psychologists' diagnostic reasoning

Deliberation, mood response, and the confirmation bias in the religious belief domain.

Confirmation bias emerges from an approximation to Bayesian reasoning

Mathematical models of confirmation bias

Cognitive Bias and Belief Revision

Confirmation biases in selective exposure to political online information: Source bias vs. content bias

Mistakes in Thinking about Cognitive Science and How to Reduce Them

Moderate confirmation bias enhances collective decision-making in reinforcement-learning agents

Overconfidence and Prejudice

The Sin of Prediction: When Mentally Simulated Alternatives Compete With Reality

Seeing the Truth About Double Blinding

Personal Values and Cognitive Biases

Cognitive Bias in the Patient Encounter: Part II. Debiasing using an adaptive toolbox

Thinking false and slow: Implausible beliefs and the Cognitive Reflection Test

Cognitive Bias in the Patient Encounter: Part I. Background and significance

Cognitive Biases in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Implications for Joint Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery Conference

Conspiracy beliefs in the context of a comprehensive rationality assessment

Overcoming resistance to belief revision and correction of misinformation beliefs: psychophysiological and behavioral effects of a counterfactual mindset